Saw a Juke in Person the Other Day...

I would rock that hard. With a 6-speed manual.

Nitroracer wrote: I read a review recently that was trying to say that the Juke is nissan's attempt at a hot hatch. It tries to hide its rear doors, has a turbo and a six speed - but to get it to the sales floor it also became a CUV. That is what the public buys. Look at it this way:

We wouldn't blame you for thinking we're one stud short of a lug pattern on this one, but point your peepers to a few specs and you'll see what we mean. The Juke weighs in at less than 3,000 pounds in front-wheel-drive guise and packs a turbocharged, direct-injection 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine that's good for 188 horsepower. For reference, the company's own Sentra SE-R hits the scales with an extra 88 pounds on its waist and 11 fewer ponies at its command. Opt for the manual gearbox in the Juke, and things get even lighter. Intrigued? We were too.

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/24/2011-nissan-juke-review-road-test/ I'd rock one in a few years after someone else has taken the depreciation hit for me. MotoIQ seemed to like the engine too.

I read both sites too. I still wouldn't touch a Juke with a 10-foot pole, not (just) because of the styling, but because I don't like crossovers in general and because the only way to get AWD is with an abominable CVT. Nissan needs to drop the new engine into the Sentra SE-R or make a Versa SE-R if it has any hope of saving the SE-R nameplate. The Nissan Sport Concept that came out a few years ago was bad-ass and deserves the new motor!

I won't quote the pic again, but the dropped one on the green Volks is VERY cool.

It seems like a really interesting setup, save for the Dali front end. I read in the local paper's automotive section that it's a fun drive.

Why would they not put a real diff in the rear? What's the benefit to a fancy computer controlled clutch system? Seems like its way more complicated than it needs to be.

Nitroracer wrote: I read a review recently that was trying to say that the Juke is nissan's attempt at a hot hatch. It tries to hide its rear doors, has a turbo and a six speed - but to get it to the sales floor it also became a CUV. That is what the public buys. Look at it this way:

We wouldn't blame you for thinking we're one stud short of a lug pattern on this one, but point your peepers to a few specs and you'll see what we mean. The Juke weighs in at less than 3,000 pounds in front-wheel-drive guise and packs a turbocharged, direct-injection 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine that's good for 188 horsepower. For reference, the company's own Sentra SE-R hits the scales with an extra 88 pounds on its waist and 11 fewer ponies at its command. Opt for the manual gearbox in the Juke, and things get even lighter. Intrigued? We were too.

http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/24/2011-nissan-juke-review-road-test/ I'd rock one in a few years after someone else has taken the depreciation hit for me. MotoIQ seemed to like the engine too.

That's like saying that your girlfrend is butt ugly but has a nice personality. Why buy an ugly vehicle with good specs when there are plenty of good looking vehicles with good specs?

Yeah, ever since the French have taken over Nissan Design, I'm left cold.

wheelsmithy wrote: Yeah, ever since the French have taken over Nissan Design, I'm left cold.

Yeah, those older Datsuns were so much better-looking.

Actually, I would say that it is better looking than the Juke.

Exhibit B

Yes, not good looking, but not offending either. And IMO not uglier than that Juke. No.

Exhibit C

Exhibit D - See how you can spin anything to prove "your" point if you want to? This is also a fundamental element in politics.

Google "Ugly Datsun" and get 94,900 hits.
Google "Ugly Nissan" and get 848,000 hits, with the Juke on the first page of images.

I owned a '79 200 SX. It was uglier than pictures show. It may be the ugliest car ever made. Good god, it was ugly, and I owned one.

Not a bad car, but UGLY.

bravenrace wrote: That's like saying that your girlfrend is butt ugly but has a nice personality. Why buy an ugly vehicle with good specs when there are plenty of good looking vehicles with good specs?

I like the off-beat stuff, like the juke and the previous generation cube. And it still has some sporting intentions. Not the best choice, just a different one.

Tim Baxter wrote: I owned a '79 200 SX. It was uglier than pictures show. It may be the ugliest car ever made. Good god, it was ugly, and I owned one. Not a bad car, but UGLY.

My dad raced a 77 for a while. It was ugly and since it was a race car, we ended up with more of them somehow. Of course I remember looking through the Nissan Motorsports catalog at the neat bubble flares they made for the 200sx, then I saw a car in the neighborhood with a set of those flares installed. Thought it looked much better and with a L28 turbo motor stuffed in the nose, it would be a lot more fun ;)

As to the Juke, I have dubbed it the "Puke" until proven otherwise. Much like the Aztec and other automotive atrocities, couldn't someonehavesteppedforward and pointed out that the Emporor's Design team has no clothes?